tv [untitled] March 22, 2012 10:30pm-11:00pm PDT
would make our city were safe. i believe in the legislation coming before us today. i believe that for many, many reasons. that community support we have seen today exemplifies how important this is it for so many people in san francisco. this will help make san francisco more safe and does so by ensuring our community we wholeheartedly crestar agencies because we have codified the very things we all say we believe in. we believe in respecting the laws and require a clear criminal predicate to conduct intelligence gathering. i do not think there's anyone in this room who disagrees with this or anyone who represents the agencies or city government who disagrees. also that we need to create framework of oversight for the joint terrorism task force much like our other public safety efforts here in san francisco.
in addition to working with community members today, we also work with the police department to see what we can do to clarify the ambiguities that may come forth from the ordinance. i'm offering a few amendments today which i believe we have passed out. first, we are removing the final section that urges the chief to amend or terminate the current mou. dusty but we are striking out. we are clarifying the -- that i am we are striking out. last couple yet streamlined the reporting requirements for the office of citizen complaints. this work is the result of many years of effort. many of you have been following the slaughter that i have. the human-rights commission
heard what are committed backers are experiencing post-9/11, whether it's questioning around religious beliefs or what the cultural activities in their homeland without any cause of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. this resulted in a comprehensive report released last year which was unanimously endorsed by this board in april. the board's resolution made clear that "committee members are concerned about the criminalization of their identity and guilt by association becoming the standard for policing and national security strategies." that is something we do not believe in in this room or in the city. this legislation is in response to that resolution. in august, the committee approach the board of supervisors to see if it codify the things we have stated we are currently doing in process. this is not a unique approach. the city of portland passed
similar legislation in 2011. off they are protecting civil rights, creating a framework for civilian oversight and guaranteeing and a proper level of transparency. this is our previous remark that we put in place in san francisco. under than mayor willie brown and our previous chief of police. it was sorted out with positive recommendations and dozens of community members came to testify -- we had it two hours of public comment. there has been a lot of talk about why we need this ordinance. we do respect our local privacy laws and basic civil liberties and i believe we do that here in this city. but i also believe if this is that important and we believe in these values, it deserves to be codified in our laws. thank you, colleagues, and i ask for your support and vote today.
supervisor avalos: thank you. i would like to thank supervisor to him for bringing this legislation forward. -- supervisor kim for bringing this legislation forward. legislation relies on sound trust between the community and police. whether police are working at the local level or working with federal agents, it's important our communities and san francisco have a trusting relationship with the police so they can carry forward their work and also the community can feel they are not being surveyed or under surveillance in a way that jeopardize their sense of security and freedom. that has not been the experience of many people in this country over the past decade, especially after 9/11. while we are 10 years out, many feelings that existed from 9/11 are still with us and we have a
large part of the muslim, arab, southeast asian community, feel at times overwhelmed by the level of surveillance around the country and discrimination that is very palpable within the community. the city has a responsibility to make sure we're doing everything we can do to make sure policing efforts around counter- terrorism are transparent in ways that are respectful. i've wholeheartedly support this legislation and i think it's a step in the right direction. we might have policies in place that provide protection, and in the long term, we don't know whether those exist or not. having these policies codified of legislation helps to build a level of security. we had two hours of
presentations from the community in the public safety committee. that was on top of hours of presentations and testimony that happen to the human rights -- human rights commission a couple of years ago. the stories are hurling, people's experiences and emotions that are there and the sense of whether you are open to talk to your co-workers or other family members about their experiences and what you can express your own opinions, those are true experiences and it warrants a response on our side that looks at how we can make these protections real and how we can make them long term. i'm honored to support this legislation and would like to think supervisor kim for bringing this for and help can come together. it's meaningful for this city that has many of the freedoms
many of us take for granted in this part of the country. thank you. [applause] supervisor chu: thank you. i will be joining my colleagues supporting this legislation because like many of us here, i was shocked to discover that our city entered into a secret memorandum of understanding with the fbi that would have allowed police officers to conduct secret investigations without reasonable suspicion. this is san francisco. but as america. from my perspective, we all agree that these types of mous undermine the public trust.
i'd like to think the chiefs because of an easing gauge with many of us on this conversation and we have come to learn of the fact in 2007 the police department entered into this secret agreement this is legislation to make sure that regardless of you this feature police chief is the legacy we're trying to stand for today remains in place around the process and civil liberties. i would like to think the broad coalition that has come out in support of this measure. civil-rights organizations, how the rights organizations, labor unions, organizations that work with the lbgt community, the small business community and other organizations that understand what this about. coalition is abroad because everyone in this room, we know we do not want history to repeat itself. it was not too long ago that japanese americans were in turned.
because wartime necessity called for it. it was not too long ago, and 1950's, that chinese americans were detained and interrogated during the cold war. it wasn't long ago that african- americans had their phones tapped. it wasn't very long ago that the lgbt community had photographs taken of them and individual residents in san francisco were humiliated and dragged from underground bars. and we know that after 9/11, we have muslim, arab, and south asian brothers and sisters who are being surveiled by the fbi for no other reasons that because of what they look like or what communities they are from. part of what today is about is that we need to stand up and say as a city, we can do better. every meeting at the board of supervisors, we start with the
board of supervisors, which star with the plot -- every meeting of the board of supervisors, we start at the pledge of allegiance. we have to make sure we stand for a country as city with liberty and justice for all and i absolutely believe we can do better and this legislation will do that and i ask for your support. thank you. [applause] supervisor campos: thank you. i would like to begin by thanking supervisor camera and their staff -- supervisor kim and her staff. i'm not going to belabor the point as to the many reasons why 470 communities this is an important piece of legislation. -- i'm not going to belabor the reasons why for so many communities this is an important piece of legislation. but one of the things i know
many of us are very proud about our police department and police commission is that we have a body in the police commission that provides civilian oversight to every area of operations of the police department. there are many people who work hard to make sure we have a civilian oversight in place. civilian oversight of the body like the police department cannot function as intended if you have agencies that have the ability to enter into these kinds of secret agreements, even if they are with a federal agency. that's why it's so important for us to make sure we codify the practices that all of us believe our practices that should be dieting how the police department and engages in that
relationship, especially with an agency like the fbi. i'm confident with our chief at the san francisco police department, the issues people are concerned about our issues that are going to be handled in a way consistent with the values of san francisco. the chief has demonstrated that and that among the reasons and along the lines of what president chiu was indicating, it's not that we get right with the chief of police, this is codifying it so that your respective of who the chief of police is, whoever sits on that commission, we have in place rules that make it clear that certain things are not acceptable in san francisco. that's why it's important to have codification of those principles. that's what this ordinance does. the thing about what we're doing here today is that i think it's
following best practices the same way san francisco has set an example on so many other friends when it comes to the issue of policing. having been a member of the san francisco police commission, i and understand the importance of making sure we maintain the flexibility and authority of the police commission. that's why i'm so proud to be a co-sponsor of this initiative. i think it's important to codify this principles and i want to say we should be very proud of that here in san francisco we can embrace something like this ordinance and my hope is other jurisdictions in this country can follow that example. thank you. [applause] supervisor mar: i want to thank supervised kim and i counted 79 organizations part of this process to improve community
policing and protect people's civil rights and liberties. at the public safety committee meeting, the human stories people told of fear and the chilling effects of the counter- terrorism work dictated by the federal government, how impacted them and their families, i heard a tremendous stories of fear and comments about ethnic mapping and the chilling impact on middle eastern, arab, muslim and south asian communities. we heard stories from asian- americans and pacific islanders from many community-based organizations. during the mccarthy era, the chilling effect of the racial profiling, we heard testimony from chicanos and latinos during the '60s and '70s of being victims of racial profiling. the coalition did that as we
protect communities and local control over all law enforcement and protecting people's basic civil liberties and justice in our communities. i thank the coalition and supervisor kim for bringing this court and i hope there'll support of this as we move forward not just in san francisco and portland but throughout the country as well. [applause] supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. president. sometimes on a difficult vote, it's tempting just to vote and not actually say anything. but i'm a big believer in explaining one's vote when you are casting a controversial vote. so i want to explain why i will be voting against this ordinance
today. i will admit this has been a very tough issue for me. i have struggled with it and met with basically anyone has wanted to meet with me about that listened and reviewed an enormous amount of but it -- enormous amount of material. i even spoke with the mayor of portland. this is tough for me also because a number of legal organizations, and i do admit to being a lawyer, including organizations i have been involved with and people i work with have supported this. sometimes it is really hard to take a position that's contrary to some other people for whom you have great respect. in my view, this legislation is not about whether san francisco police department should be complying with our local policies and values. of course it should and we have a general order, we have a
bulletin that makes it crystal clear about what san francisco police officers are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do. they are not allowed to violate our local policy and if they do not comply, they will pay the consequences. they have to identify themselves, making a complaint if possible. there must be a criminal predicate under our local policies. this is not a situation where san francisco police department is somehow now the fbi and acting the way the fbi acts. we have our own a local policies and police officers are expected to comply with them. it is interesting that the san francisco police department is not being demonized here. people seem to be admitting, and it has been stated it repeatedly
today, that the department is acting in good faith. the question is not about whether we should have to comply with local policies. we do that. i'm 100% support of of having those local standards that reflect san francisco value. including the requirement of a criminal predicate. the question for me is whether this needs to be legislated. do we need to put this in our code? i don't think it does. when you look at the general orders of the police department, they touch on some incredibly important things. we have an entire detailed order about the use of force, the use of firearms, arrest procedures, domestic violence, investigation of officer-involved shootings. we could codify all those, but we don't because we know our police commission adopt those general orders and the department is expected to comply
with them. i want to address the situation with portland because that has been brought up a lot. portland did this so we should as well. i did speak with the mayor of portland and portland is a different structure than san francisco. they do not have a police commission. their city council is effectively their police commission. their city council adopted not an ordnance. they did not do it legislatively. they adopted a resolution setting policy for the police department which the police commission has already done here. if this were simply a requirement and all it did was say in the future, you will have to go to the police commission when you enter and mou, that would be a different story. i would be open to supporting that kind of legislation, but
this goes beyond that. i also -- i understand there are a lot of people who feel very passionately about this and i'm extremely respectful of that passion and support. this is not one of those issues where you disagree with me, i think you are absolutely wrong and it's a terrible position. i i understand and respect those who are supporting this and who are passionately supporting it. i do think we have to be careful about the comparisons we drop. i don't think this legislation today is in any way connected to the interment of the japanese- americans during world war two, i don't think it's about gay people being dragged out of bars and persecuted the way my people were in the past and still are in some places today. this is an important public policy discussion, but i think there are comparisons that in my
personal view go too far. so i will be voting against this today and i thank everyone for their time and energy working on this issue. supervisor kim: i forgot to make another thank you. i want to thank my colleagues. i think everyone was helpful in their analysis. what this ordinance does do -- it does require futuremous to have transparency. we secretly amended one and nobody knew about it. this would prevent that very thing from happening again. around the general orders -- it would codify the please order would continue to qualify any current or future mous because
it would have to fall under requiring certain things to be met before you conduct intelligence gathering. sfpd does not conduct intelligence gathering here in san francisco. but we are letting the committee know this is important to codify into legislation. producer violence, it's based on criminal predicate or reasonable suspicion and that's important enough to legislate and i think that's where the disagreement is in this room. i do feel importantly about this and i also want to say i know a lot of comparisons have been made, but i think the community before us today -- they feel like there has been a lot of persecution against the south asian, muslim, and arab community and i think it's very real. we read about in the papers and hear about our community and unfortunately we hear about it from our friends. but there has been a backlash against this community.
very severely and similar to other communities have been engaged with. the comparisons are more about the current national sentiment and atmosphere and how that has allowed us to fear monger on a certain level to say if we do not do these things, we all are allowing terrorism to happen on our homeland. we could say this police order may not impact the general racism or hate that might exist in this country, but i want to acknowledge some of that allows us to say maybe we can decrease protections against civil liberties because we are fearful of counter-terrorism in this country or we are fearful of this or that happening from certain members of our community because they believe in this or look like this or practice this. that's why this legislation is coming before us today.